The Foreign Service Journal, April 2016

16 APRIL 2016 | THE FOREIGN SERVICE JOURNAL SPEAKING OUT The Department of State: Mission and Vision Examined BY EDWARD MARKS T he drafting and publication of an official mission statement has become standard practice for all sorts of organizations, including governmental ones. What it is and how to prepare it are now taught in business schools. One fairly standard definition of a mission statement (this one taken from Wikipedia) is that it is a statement of the purpose of a company, organization or person; its reason for existing; a written declaration of its core purpose and focus. Amission statement is different from a vision statement. While there are various ways to approach this, I would suggest that a mission statement defines and describes the organization, while the vision state- ment is the “roadmap” that tells us what it wishes to accomplish at any given point. Applied to the Department of State, this tracks with the traditional distinction between diplomacy and foreign policy. Using some fairly standard dictionary definitions, we find that diplomacy is “the art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations” in order to implement foreign policy, which in turn consists of the subjects, items and objectives of a given country at a given time. In other words, diplomacy is the instru- ment and foreign policy is the program. A mission statement describes the instru- State now has two personnel systems, operating on different principles, undermining the congressional (and national) decision to create and operate a distinct professional diplomatic team. Edward Marks spent 40 years in the U.S. Foreign Service, including an assignment as ambassador to Guinea-Bissau and Cape Verde. A senior mentor at various military institutions, Ambassador Marks serves as a member of the American Diplomacy board and as a Distinguished Senior Fellow at George Mason University. He was a retiree representative on the AFSA Governing Board from 2013 to 2015. ment, while a vision statement describes the program. Confusion at State The Department of State appears to be somewhat confused about this distinction. Here is its mission statement presented in the Fiscal Year 2015 Financial Report and shown on the department’s website: “The [State] Department’s mission is to shape and sustain a peaceful, prosperous, just and democratic world, and foster condi- tions for stability and progress for the benefit of the American people and people everywhere. This mission is shared with USAID, ensuring we have a common path forward in partnership as we invest in the shared security and prosperity that will ultimately better prepare us for the chal- lenges of tomorrow.” A very brief overview of American for- eign policy objectives, this would appear to be more a vision statement than a mission statement. In other instances, the Department of State seems to have a better grip on the distinction. The following is displayed on State’s career page on the Web: “The U.S. Department of State is the lead institution for the conduct of American diplomacy, and the Secretary of State is the President’s principal foreign policy advisor.” This is more like a mission statement or organizational description, although it is curiously inadequate. For instance, it does not state the obvious—that State is a U.S. government department—even though stating “obvious” fundamental facts is the point of a mission statement. Calling the Department of State an “institution” is a curious bit of terminology that falls short of describing its official character. Further, this statement does not describe the department’s very special organizational model: a headquarters located inWashington, D.C., with some 300 fairly small “branches” or offices (embassies and consulates) spread around the world. This is the key organizational character- istic of the State Department and reflects its fundamental role—that of continu- ous interaction with other governments through formal liaison offices and accred-